![roger benitez roger benitez](https://scallywagandvagabond.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/q.jpeg)
In line with the Ninth Circuit’s hostility toward the Second Amendment, an 11-judge en banc panel will rehear Duncan on June 22 nd. Duncan won at both the district court level (in Judge Benitez’s courtroom), and then won again before a three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit.
![roger benitez roger benitez](https://a.ltrbxd.com/resized/sm/upload/4c/ck/0y/d3/zIVdkdxnUVM0JII7BJ1F9dHQ2eq-0-230-0-345-crop.jpg)
The reason is the extraordinary success of Duncan. Indeed, Second Amendment law in the Ninth Circuit is facing a bottleneck right now. But the Miller appeal will almost certainly be stayed at the Ninth Circuit, pending rulings in other important Second Amendment cases-like Duncan, Rhode, and Rupp-that are already on appeal at the Ninth Circuit.
![roger benitez roger benitez](http://myrightamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/judge-800x420.jpg)
It will then take at least a year for a final ruling from a standard three-judge panel if there are no extended delays. We know with certainty that the state will appeal Miller to the Ninth Circuit. Had there been a gap, some people would inevitably (and illegally) modify and reconfigure their presently California-compliant firearms into “assault weapon” configuration. But second, and more importantly, an automatic stay decreases the likelihood of confusion among gun owners caused by a time gap between the entry of Judge Benitez’s order and the entry of the stay-a gap during which “assault weapons” theoretically would have been unregulated. Recall that both Duncan and Rhode were stayed, albeit with some time between Judge Benitez’s order and the stays becoming effective. First, the Department of Justice would have no doubt obtained a stay sooner or later, whether from Judge Benitez or under the rule that allows the Ninth Circuit to grant a stay. Judge Benitez’s decision to stay his own order out of the gate makes sense. Don’t go reconfiguring your rifle just yet. This gives the state time to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Attorney General has already promised to do. But Judge Benitez’s ruling includes an automatic 30-day stay of his order. Usually when a federal judge enters an order for injunctive relief, that order takes effect immediately. Most significantly, this ruling has no immediate impact. But, in limited instances when it is appropriate, a preliminary injunction request can be consolidated with a trial.
Roger benitez trial#
Originally, the plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction-a request for immediate relief, based on limited evidence, to be put in place pending the final resolution of the case at trial based on a complete body of evidence. Judge Benitez’s June 4 ruling in Miller is a final trial decision. Modern rifles are legal to build, buy, and own under federal law and the laws of 45 states.” Perhaps most importantly, Benitez notes that California’s ban on such firearms “has had no effect” on shootings in the state and that “California’s experiment is a failure.” Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.” Judge Benitez further observes, “The Second Amendment protects modern weapons.” A few pages later, he adds, “Modern rifles are popular. Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR- 15 type rifle. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. In his opening paragraph, Judge Benitez observes, “Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. ( Rupp is fully briefed and argued but is stayed at the Ninth Circuit pending resolution of other important Second Amendment cases noted below). Becerra-a challenge to California’s “assault weapon” ban already on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The arguments Judge Benitez addressed in Miller are the same arguments that CRPA made in Rupp v. Bonta that vigorously scrutinized the “evidence” the state offered in support of California’s “assault weapon” ban, found it woefully inadequate, and declared California’s laws banning common “assault weapons” (like the AR-15) unconstitutional. And, on June 4, 2021, he issued a 94-page opinion in Miller v. Indeed, in recent years, he delivered bold and comprehensive pro-Second Amendment decisions in CRPA-supported cases Duncan (challenge to magazine capacity limits)and Rhode (challenge to ammunition sales bans and background checks). United States District Court Judge Roger Benitez meant it when he took his oath to uphold the Constitution as he was sworn in as a federal judge in 2004.